The Experience of an Apparent Disproportion between Textual Size and Meaning

23 Pages·2015·0.17 MB·English

Pensamiento y Cultura
ISSN: 0123-0999
[email protected]
Universidad de La Sabana
Colombia
Ángel-Lara, Marco Aurelio
Some Aphoristic Reading Effects: The Experience of an Apparent Disproportion between Textual Size
and Meaning
Pensamiento y Cultura, vol. 16, núm. 2, diciembre-, 2013, pp. 122-143
Universidad de La Sabana
Cundinamarca, Colombia
Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=70130427006
How to cite
Complete issue
Scientific Information System
More information about this article
Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal
Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative
122 |
Some Aphoristic Reading Effects:
The Experience of an Apparent
Disproportion between Textual
Size and Meaning
Efectos de la lectura aforística: la experiencia de una
desproporción evidente entre el tamaño textual y el significado
Certains Effets aphoristique de la lecture: L'expérience d'une
apparente disproportion entre la longueur d’un texte et son sens
---
Marco Aurelio Ángel-Lara³
Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro – México
Recibido: 2013-07-01
Envío a pares: 2013-07-03
Aprobado por pares: 2013-10-15
Aceptado: 2013-10-15
Pensamiento y Cultura | ISSN: 0123-0999 | eISSN: 2027-5331
pensam.cult | Vol. 16-2 | Diciembre de 2013 | pp. 122-143
³ [email protected]
Marco Aurelio Ángel-Lara| 123
Some Aphoristic Reading Effects: The Experience of an Apparent
Disproportion between Textual Size and Meaning
Abstract: Many contemporary readers have identified such a reading
experience of aphorisms as an exceptional experience of a disproportion between
textual size and meaning. Such an experience has been associated intrinsically
with the genre and several have proposed their models of explanation for it.
These models are mainly based on the ideas of text as container and meaning
as content; in this essay I propose an alternative explanation relying on
another set of concepts.
Key words: Aphorism, Genre Theory, Disproportion, Textual Size, Meaning
Efectos de la lectura aforística: la experiencia de una
desproporción evidente entre el tamaño textual y el significado
Resumen: Muchos lectores de aforismos han identificado cierta experiencia
de la lectura de aforismos literarios como la de una inusitada desproporción
entre la extensión del texto y el significado. Esta ha sido asociada intrínsecamente
al género y muchos expertos han propuesto modelos de explicación para la
misma. Estos modelos están basados en las ideas de texto como continente y
significado como contenido; en este ensayo propongo un modelo alternativo
basado en otro juego de conceptos.
Palabras clave: aforismo, teoría de géneros, desproporción, extensión, significado
Certains Effets aphoristique de la lecture: L'expérience d'une
apparente disproportion entre la longueur d’un texte et son sens
Résumé: Beaucoup de lecteurs contemporains ont identifié dans la lecture
d’aphorismes une inhabituelle disproportion entre la longueur d’un texte et
son sens. Cette situation a été intrinsèquement liée au genre et des nombreux
experts ont proposé des modèles d'explication pour cette question. Ces modèles
sont basés sur les idées du texte comme continent et le sens comme contenu;
cet essai propose un modèle alternatif basé sur un autre ensemble de concepts.
Mots-clés: Aphorisme, théorie du genre, disproportion, extension, sens.
pensam.cult | Vol. 16-2 | Diciembre de 2013
124 |Some Aphoristic Reading Effects:
The Experience of an Apparent Disproportion between Textual Size and Meaning
The too much and the enough must be united, there must be abun-
dance and economy. The narrow and the wide, the little and the much,
must be mingled. The sound must be brief and the meaning infinite.
Joseph Joubert
Introduction
I will speculate on a reading effect of aphorisms. I aim to propose a
hypothesis to explain what I have called the experience of an apparent
disproportion between textual size and meaning. Probably linked with
the general acceptance of concision as a feature of the aphoristic genre,
is the opinion that aphorisms carry a surprisingly vast quantity of
meaning, and that such a quantity is proportionally much larger than
that carried by other texts. There is a common tendency to attribute
this feature to the whole genre that also needs to be commented on, in
order to limit this paper’s subject: not all aphorisms produce the same
reading experience (the mere existence of Hippocratic and medical
aphorisms proves this point).
Although the last statements help narrow down the scope of this
paper to aphoristic texts that cause the experience of an apparent dispro-
portion between textual size and meaning, the idea that such a scope
should be restrained within the group of texts that can produce such
effects, takes one into the slippery terrain of speculating on subjec-
tivity. Thinking about the experience of quantity of meaning, seeming
to surpass its linguistic form, inevitably implies an interaction between
texts and those who read (or experience) them as highly meaningful.
We are not only dealing with objective features of texts, but also with
a subjective experience of them. It is not, however, my intention to
develop a thorough explanation of this subject; but instead, to suggest
that it is more important to understand the relations between elements
of the aphoristic communication (text, context and users included) than
it is to focus (as has been done quite often) on the study of one single
element –such as the text itself.
Pensamiento y Cultura | ISSN: 0123-0999 | eISSN: 2027-5331 | pp. 122-143
Marco Aurelio Ángel-Lara| 125
Identifying an aphoristic reading experience
Container-content solutions
When discussing a reading effect, the first difficulty is finding evidence
that confirms the existence of similar experiences in other readers.
Such evidence will not necessarily validate that kind of experience as
the experience of reading, but it will justify it as a subject of discussion:
the account of somebody else witnessing a similar subjective occur-
rence will indicate that one is not simply talking about an individual
delirium. Once such a validation has been found, one has, to, never-
theless, avoid jumping too quickly from basic agreements to theoret-
ical conclusions. We need to be careful, not to claim that consensus
about the existence of a subjective experience proves something other
than mere consensus about the existence of such an experience, and
equally, not to claim the discovery of an unmistakable mark of texts
which belong to this genre.
I will start by quoting extensively from two texts about aphorisms.
One is from the essay ‘La Rochefoucauld: Réflexions ou Sentences et
Maximes’ by Roland Barthes, who wrote:
Dans la maxime, l’intellect perçoit d’abord des substances pleines,
non le flux progressif de la pensée. Si je lis : « Tout le monde se plaint
de sa mémoire, et personne de son jugement », mon esprit est frappé
par la plénitude de ces termes solitaires : mémoire, jugement, se
plaindre ; et comme, malgré tout, ces mots-vedettes s’enlèvent sur
un certain fond plus modeste,` j’ai le sentiment (d’ailleurs profondé-
ment esthétique) d’avoir affaire à une véritable économie métrique
de la pensée, distribuée dans l’espace fixe et fini qui lui est imparti (la
longueur d’une maxime). [Bold mine], (Barthes 1972, 72)
pensam.cult | Vol. 16-2 | Diciembre de 2013
126 |Some Aphoristic Reading Effects:
The Experience of an Apparent Disproportion between Textual Size and Meaning
I should emphasize that, beside reticence about the metaphysical
aura of words such as “essences” and “substances”, the focus of my main
concern is the difficulty of clearly understanding the concept of intellec-
tual perception applied to such things.1
The other text is “The Craft of Aphorism: Philosophy above the
Book” by Dustin Atlas, in which one reads:
With most philosophical texts, one need only learn the author’s
‘voice’, or style, and one is ‘ushered into the truth’ and can coast along
the surface of their work, ‘absorbing’ meaning. […] But the apho-
rism makes this impossible: there is always more, for in the spaces cut
between, a labyrinth inevitably opens.
Much like montage, the reader/viewer is ‘shocked’ with every
cut, and it is perhaps for this reason that the aphorism is able to
promote thought in even the most overstimulated times, to cut into
the sleeping consciousness. […] there are relations between our
thoughts –often impossible to articulate– that are greater than any
individual thought. […] Meaning originates in the spaces between
our thoughts, not the thoughts themselves.
1 On the other hand, some lines of the text provide clues about the character of those essenc-
es and substances:
Lorsqu’un langage – et c’est le cas de la maxime – propose quelques termes de
sens fort, essentiel, il est fatal que la relation s’absorbe en eux : plus les substantifs
sont forts, plus la relation tend à l’immobilité. C’est qu’en effet, si l’on vous présente
deux objets forts (j’entends des objets psychologiques), par exemple la sincérité et
la dissimulation, le rapport qui s’instaure spontanément entre eux tend toujours à
être un rapport immobile de manifestation, c’est- à -dire d’équivalence […] il s’agit
en somme par l’état même de la structure, d’une relation d’essence, non de faire,
d’identité, non de transformation. (Barthes 1972, 74)
Barthes also wrote some few pages after:
Cet amour-propre a à peu près les propriétés d’une substance chimique – on
pourrait presque dire magique – puisque cette substance est à la fois vitale et unitaire :
[…] c’est un Protée ; comme puissance de désordre, la passion (ou l’amour-propre,
c’est la méme chose) est un dieu actif, tourmenteur. (Barthes 1972, 83)
It seems that the assumption of a substratum of meaning as the ground of aphoristic struc-
tures, which communicates them essentially, would explain the idea of structures that are
« coupée du discours » but not « coupée du signifiance » (Barthes, 1972: 71 and ss.)
Pensamiento y Cultura | ISSN: 0123-0999 | eISSN: 2027-5331 | pp. 122-143
Marco Aurelio Ángel-Lara| 127
Of course, montage, external contradiction, inevitably leads to
‘misunderstandings’, but this only if to be ‘understood’ is to have one’s
own thought copied into the mind of the reader. The aphorism does
not ‘disseminate’ or ‘communicate’ meaning, it pushes us to generate
meaning ourselves. (Atlas 2005, 40-41)
It is difficult to know exactly what Barthes refers to when he informs
us of an intellectual perception of “substances pleines” inside the maxim;
however, if such an experience was obtained through reading, then
one could simply think that Barthes’ mention of the aesthetic feeling of
dealing with «une véritable économie métrique de la pensée» distributed
within the maxim’s space is, basically, an account of the effects of such
reading experience. On the other hand, Dustin Atlas’ metaphorical style
attempts to portray the contrast between what happens in “the mind of
the reader” when dealing with aphorisms, as opposed to reading other
philosophical texts. 2 He claims that reading aphorisms produces more
meaning than reading most philosophical texts –when reading the latter
“(one) can coast along the surface […], ‘absorbing’ meaning. […] But
the aphorism makes this impossible: there is always more.”
Both testimonies describe the experience of a seeming disproportion
between the size of these texts and their ‘content’ or ‘meaning’ - which can
2 Atlas believes that metaphors can account for the aphoristic techniques (“access to
aphoristic techne must take place via metaphor” (Atlas 2005, 36)) and he uses meta-
phors such as ‘the knife’ and ‘the mirror’ to this end. Comparing his concepts to some of
Barthes and Derrida’s metaphors (‘spur’, ‘thorax’ and ‘hard skeleton’), he gives some char-
acteristics of ‘the knife’:
The hard, sharp, and cutting aspects of the aphorism are often noticed. Barthes
employs images similar to Derrida’s spur: the “thorax” and the “hard” skeleton.
However, while one metaphor might possibly exhaust the style of a single writer,
it is clearly inadequate for the aphorism as such. Thus to access aphoristic techne,
I employ two metaphors: the knife and the mirror; for the episteme that aphoristic
techne exists in relation to, I employ the labyrinth and the hall of mirrors.
The knife is more versatile than either the spur or the thorax: it attacks,
parries, slices food, opens letters… It is, after the club, one of the most primitive
technologies we have, and yet, one of the most delicate. […] but my primary
interest is in the knife that reveals: opening a veil with a single cut – but more
immediately, we must examine the knife that turns back on the aphorism itself,
severing its copula. (Atlas 2005, 36)
pensam.cult | Vol. 16-2 | Diciembre de 2013
128 |Some Aphoristic Reading Effects:
The Experience of an Apparent Disproportion between Textual Size and Meaning
be taken as an equivalent to the reading experience about which I want to
hypothesize. However, to back up this claim, it may be necessary to make a
clarification about Dustin Atlas’ argument.
Atlas claims: “I have chosen to define the aphorism through its
techne” (2005, 34). To avoid a possible confusion, he acknowledges the
complexity of the concept techne:
The specific meaning of techne is debatable. Following one interpreta-
tion of Aristotle’s delineations of knowledge, techne is translated as ‘craft’
and defined in opposition to episteme (typically translated as ‘knowl-
edge’) (Parry 1). This division is, however, problematic and simplistic,
especially if one draws one’s terms from Plato instead of Aristotle (Parry
3); Plato, because of his dialectical (or, arguably, dialogical) approach,
rarely defines a term or concept to the exclusion of its opposite—they
always intermingle and inform each other. (2005, 34)
And he is keen to claim that he has chosen to define a type of writing
by the technical knowledge related to its creation:
Regardless, it is clear that any craft or technique involves some sort
of (technical) knowledge, and knowledge is acquired through,
and thus involves, craft (such as research); each shapes and is inex-
tricably bound to the other. The craft of aphorism allows an access
to thinking, facilitates a certain type of thought, which other tech-
niques of writing do not and can not; it is, for this reason, truly a
technology of writing: a creation that allows for the saying of things
otherwise unsayable. Therefore, I define the aphorism as a type of
writing that allows this possibility through its particular techne.
(Atlas 2005, 34, Bold is mine)
Nonetheless, it could be argued that if a) Atlas is talking about
aphorisms only based on his reading experience and, as a reader, b) he
is receiving and interpreting a crafted written product after its produc-
tion process has been finished, then c) the techne of production or craft
knowledge is far from his experience.
Pensamiento y Cultura | ISSN: 0123-0999 | eISSN: 2027-5331 | pp. 122-143
Marco Aurelio Ángel-Lara| 129
Atlas’ statements seem to be based on a basic confusion between the
techne of crafting an aphorism and the effect produced by an (crafted) apho-
rism in a reader. It could be argued that an impression that a reader gets
from reading aphorisms (or any text) is not about the crafting process
(or techne), but an effect caused by the final product of such a process.
If a reader thinks or feels that aphorisms are like a knife which cuts veils
revealing something, then the most one can concede is that he is entitled to
his impression of (reading) aphorisms, but it would be too much to attri-
bute the technical knowledge of the writing of aphorisms to their readers.
Assuming intentionality in the design of a text, the most one may say
about a reader’s impression of such a text is that it is an effect that a writer
has attempted to produce. Quite simply, Atlas is talking about aphoristic
reading effects, but equating such effects with some possible ‘technical’
causes. This is why his article can be used to discuss a reading experience,
rather than -as he may prefer- writing technicalities of aphorisms.
At this point, it may be necessary to stress that a difference exists between
an experience and the way we conceptualize it. As with Barthes and Atlas’
attempts, my translation of a subjective occurrence, when reading certain
aphoristic texts, into conceptual terms, should be taken only as a model
for discussion - one which, at its best, could help to orientate us (but no
map should be taken as the territory).
When reading some aphorisms, I have felt as if there were a notice-
able disproportion between the size of the texts and the effects that they
produce in me. The time it takes me to decipher the letters of some apho-
ristic texts does not seem to correspond with the duration of a thorough
understanding and/or an emotive effect. It would be understandable to
think, along with Barthes, that there is so much thought (pensée) within
so small a space. 3 However, his conception of the maxim as a super-com-
pact container of thought is hardly believable, if one does not accept a
concept such as ‘substances pleines.’ Dustin Atlas, on the other hand,
suggests another container-content relation for aphorisms and meaning.
3 In his The World in a Phrase: A Brief History of the Aphorism, James Geary expresses the
same idea in these words:
I was amazed at how such a compact statement could contain so much significance.
(Geary 2005, 4)
pensam.cult | Vol. 16-2 | Diciembre de 2013
130 |Some Aphoristic Reading Effects:
The Experience of an Apparent Disproportion between Textual Size and Meaning
Instead of Barthes’ idea of thought-inside-text, Atlas places thought out
of texts; more exactly between them: “the external cut forces us to look
between aphorisms for meaning, just as, in montage, meaning is formed
between the shots. This is why, despite their seeming simplicity, reading
aphoristic texts is such hard work.” (Atlas 2005, 40)
Importance of context
As an alternative to these two solutions to explain this apparent
disproportion between size and meaning of some aphoristic texts, my
hypothesis will draw on relations between aphoristic texts and their
context. It has to be added that although the peculiarity of the apho-
ristic context has been noticed, I have not come across an explanation
that explores (or develops with certain detail) its role as part of a plausible
solution. However, I strongly believe that such a path of research is worth
pursuing. To explain the experience of an apparent disproportion between
textual size and meaning, this proposal will not rely on the container-con-
tent metaphor – at least not proposing texts as containers and meaning
as content. However, I will introduce concepts of an undeniable meta-
phorical quality (for instance, access device and, it can be argued, context
itself), which is to say that, as a model of explanation, this proposal -as all
the others I know- cannot aim to achieve anything more than consistency.
It has to be said that in his article, Dustin Atlas mentions explicitly
the concept of context. However, he does not give it particular impor-
tance when finding meaning:
A good aphorism should be capable of standing alone; the longevity
of certain aphorisms is due almost entirely to this independence,
their ability to function in countless contexts. On the other hand,
the aphorism is at its best only within the context of other ‘related’
aphorisms. The internal contradiction of the solitary aphorism causes
the reader to move beyond it, to look outwards. External contradic-
tion between aphorisms causes the reader to look between. It is here
that the knife reaches perfection, cutting both within the aphorism,
and without. (Atlas 2005, 40. Bold is mine)
Pensamiento y Cultura | ISSN: 0123-0999 | eISSN: 2027-5331 | pp. 122-143